Hmm, well on my P3 400Mhz It loads in about 10...
I was thinking of upgrading. But now...I think I'll just format.
And save the grand and buy the next mac mini version. Whenver that will come out.

Even a 2nd hand 1.24 will be a big surprise, as one cannot even compare a sub 2.5 Ghz PC to it in speed, and the OS is so much more user friendly. This apart of Word for Mac, which BTW opens with my 1.5 G4, 1 Gb memory in about 8 seconds. When closed, a new session is even faster, maybe 4 seconds. So don't wait any longer for an even faster system, but buy one 2nd hand I'd say, especially when using one of these old bangers at home! ____________________________________Jimę
Now on Hackintosh in G5 case!

Office loads up in around 25 seconds. Once loaded, it feels just as fast if not faster than my G4.

Interesting...

[been lurking in here for a while now, hi everybody]

I haven't thrown the full office 2004 suit on my new Intel Mini yet, but the office 2004 test drive (which i assume is the same - bar some nag screens) opens up in under 10 seconds...

My machine is a 1.66 Core Duo, with 2Gb and a 120G HD.

It feels pretty snappy. Generally much quicker than my 1.67 Powerbook with 2GB Ram (which is now for sale) although oddly iTunes seems to hog the machine when encoding lossless AAC files. It's a lot quicker to encode them, but seems to make the rest of the machine less responsive.

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: New Mini is not so great

If you got a mac because you wanted a stable system the new intel mini probably isn't for you just yet. The reason I switched to mac last year was mainly for system stability and overall compatability between software and hardware. You know on osx when something drastically bad happens it shows you that transparent box that features like 10 different languages telling you its time to restart... well on the 1st gen mini I have seen that about three times give or take... On the intels, minis and imac models I see this nearly once a week. Also once a week final cut 5 must be reinstalled on these intel machines. The error involves finding an AGP card. Not only that but illustrator photoshop and dreamweaver frequently encounter errors and must close. This is frustrating and actually makes my G4 mini and my G3 imac se 700 way more productive overall unless I do extremely frequent saves. OSX becomes much more like windows in this way. Supposidly with adobe CS3 there will be intel support but until then.. and until all the other software manufacturers start supporting the hardware the G4 or G5 is probably going to be the best bet. Rosetta is basically a G3 emulator with about half of the G4 extensions added in. The bus speed related tasks are infact quicker on the intels but the majority of things actually seem about the same. According to apple if you have a powerbook that is 1.5 or slower then the intel will be a speed improvement. For 1.67 G4 Powerbooks the PPC is infact faster in comparison to the intels with most software applications. Well obviosly the intels are way faster because if rosetta can emulate the processor and still come out faster then a 1.5 PPC then surely it has great potential. The intels are a little on the warm side in comparison to the PPC G4. Remembeer some G4's dont even use a system fan. And according to the speciifications they can get hot enough to boil water before there are any mathmatical errors. Thats a processor that is good with heat and in a small case like the mini i would imagine those holding out better then the intels. The video ram on the 1st gen minis run at 400 Mhz which is similar to the 400 Mhz of the shared DDR2 fron the intel minis, which most later stealth upgraded ppc minis have 64 mb also. However the intels do run most games better then the stock ppc mini. However on my g4 mini i can play doom 3 with no problems and thats pretty much the most advanced mac game. Hopefully once the software support is in sink with the new intels perhaps they will become just as stable as the PPC's.. lets hope so.. remember also os9 wont run on an intel mini but will run on a ppc mini. Im suprised none of these topics have come up in the forums to help people decide which mini is better for them. The only complaint seems to be about the shared video which really isnt a big deal because they both run at the same clock speed. The biggest advantage is seeming to be the 2 gb memory capacity in my opinion._________________1.5 @ 1.67 GHz 1st gen PPC mini
ATI 9200 64 mb vram
1 gb RAM
ATIcellerator VRAM @ 12% VCPU @12%

And Apple ram ($100) to 1 GB also seems like a good deal, most places are selling ram for more then that.
Apple's design of the new mini makes manually upgrading the RAM in this machine a slightly more arduous task._________________-------------
Ti400 old man

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: New Mini is not so great

djscuttle wrote:

If you got a mac because you wanted a stable system the new intel mini probably isn't for you just yet.

Personally i only got my original Mac mini because i wanted a Mac mini. I already had a stable system with my Win Xp box.. Since then i have bought a further 2 Macs. Again because i wanted them.

djscuttle wrote:

You know on osx when something drastically bad happens it shows you that transparent box that features like 10 different languages telling you its time to restart... well on the 1st gen mini I have seen that about three times give or take... On the intels, minis and imac models I see this nearly once a week.

What on earth are you doing to the poor machines. I have read about the screen you mention but NONE of the 3 machines i have has ever done this. Not even the Intel Mini i am currently writing this on. Furthermore, this machine has been running practically all week without being shut off.

djscuttle wrote:

Also once a week final cut 5 must be reinstalled on these intel machines.

It may interest you to read this page. Specifically the bit that says (quite clearly) "Note: The previous version of Final Cut Studio is not supported on Intel-based Macs."
For a better explanation of what they mean by previous version look HERE on the right hand side. A universal binary version is due before the end of this month. I suspect this is the reason that the program doesn't work for you.

I have been using photoshop (Adobe CS2) for the last few days without any problems whatsoever.

djscuttle wrote:

Not only that but illustrator photoshop and dreamweaver frequently encounter errors and must close. This is frustrating and actually makes my G4 mini and my G3 imac se 700 way more productive overall unless I do extremely frequent saves.

The more i type this reply the more i suspect your just winding us all up. Photoshop CS2 requires a "PowerPC┬« G4 or G5 processor" which in your G3 you quite obviously don't have. Also, according to Adobe the only version of photoshop they support on the Intel Mac (via Rosetta) is CS2. So you're either trying to run a rather old version of photoshop on the new Intel Mac, or you are comparing and Intel Mac running CS2 with an old version of Photoshop running on your G3. Either way - hardly a fair comparison.

djscuttle wrote:

OSX becomes much more like windows in this way.

djscuttle wrote:

Rosetta is basically a G3 emulator with about half of the G4 extensions added in.

Explain how software that requires a G4/G5 manages to get by with rosetta then...

djscuttle wrote:

The video ram on the 1st gen minis run at 400 Mhz which is similar to the 400 Mhz of the shared DDR2 fron the intel minis

remember also os9 wont run on an intel mini but will run on a ppc mini.

Windows 3.1 won't run on my 3.2Ghz PC, but i aint going to loose any sleep over it. OS9 is like, 4 versions of OSX ago. time to move on....

djscuttle wrote:

Im suprised none of these topics have come up in the forums to help people decide which mini is better for them. The only complaint seems to be about the shared video which really isnt a big deal because they both run at the same clock speed.

Shared video. Ok. you got me on that one. From my experience with the Intel Mini it is both a good an a bad thing. First the good.

And Apple ram ($100) to 1 GB also seems like a good deal, most places are selling ram for more then that.
Apple's design of the new mini makes manually upgrading the RAM in this machine a slightly more arduous task.

The same reasoning i took when i ordered my mini with 2GB. I found 2GB online for about $30 less than apple wanted, but figured i would save myself a lot of hassle splitting the box open if i just let apple do it.._________________Mac mini 1 (Old Timer - test Box @ home) : 1.42 PPC @ 1.75, 1GB Memory, 320G HD
Mac mini 2 (Colo'd Lion Server) : 2.0 CoreDuo, 2GB Memory, 240G HD

The same reasoning i took when i ordered my mini with 2GB. I found 2GB online for about $30 less than apple wanted, but figured i would save myself a lot of hassle splitting the box open if i just let apple do it..

What fun would that be?

Actually, I think it's the smarter way to go for most people (newbies). I'll be opening mine up, and putting 2GB in myself from either OWC or Newegg. I was just trying to save a few bucks.

Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: New Mini is not so great

Sparkstack wrote:

djscuttle wrote:

Rosetta is basically a G3 emulator with about half of the G4 extensions added in.

Explain how software that requires a G4/G5 manages to get by with rosetta then...

Seems obvious to me, they don't need the G5 extensions that Rosetta doesn't provide, or they're sufficiently CPU intensive that they would rather miss a few sales to people who've upgraded with an aftermarket 1 GHz G3 than deal with people trying to run them on 266 MHz iMacs.

And Apple ram ($100) to 1 GB also seems like a good deal, most places are selling ram for more then that.
Apple's design of the new mini makes manually upgrading the RAM in this machine a slightly more arduous task.

If you not planning on selling the items which are removed...____________________________________Jimę
Now on Hackintosh in G5 case!